...my claim that our entire New Testament textual knowledge of Jesus derives from those who recorded his sayings and actions at a later date, that those witnesses could be so radically divergent from Jesus' actual character as to make his entire life and message superfluous?.
I follow you completely Loran, and I have wondered this myself. Say, do you think the Mormon desire to believe in Jesus being married, is that it would make him seem more... you know... sort of like one of the regular guys? Not that he wasn't mind you, but you know how people are with talk and superfluous messages.
I don';t give a flying f*** if this thread goes to Telestial or no...
Scooter, all you have againbst gays is your sad little religion. All you have is your sad little ideology.
The UK allowed Gays to openly serve in their military, and guess what...
Not only did they NOT have a rise in soap droppers, they had a rise in UNIT INTEGRITY.
Something a non-serving asshole like yuou will NEVER understand.
Guess what, Scooter, and the rest of you lowlife sacks of s*** that profess that homosexuality is "wrong" because the Bible says so...
The Bible says a lot of s***. I can justify raping my kids and f****** animals with the Bible. With Leviticus alone I can justify f****** YOUR duaghters. WQith the rest of the Old Testament I can justify everything from incest to Genocide.
If that is the guage of your "morality" then I say f*** your morality and f*** you.
I follow you completely Loran, and I have wondered this myself. Say, do you think the Mormon desire to believe in Jesus being married, is that it would make him seem more... you know... sort of like one of the regular guys? Not that he wasn't mind you, but you know how people are with talk and superfluous messages.
There is a variety of opinion in the Church as to this, as I've encountered personally, and the Church has no opinion upon it officially. To the extent that there are such sentiments, it has nothing to do with what you're thinking here, but that Christ was obedient to the Father in all things, and had to follow through with the same requirements for ultimate exaltation as the rest of the Father's children. Eternal marriage is a fundamental aspect of that plan, and hence, Christ would have to be sealed to be fully exalted. Whether that happened in this life or not, I have no idea.
Guess what, Scooter, and the rest of you lowlife sacks of s*** that profess that homosexuality is "wrong" because the Bible says so...
The Bible says a lot of s***. I can justify raping my kids and f****** animals with the Bible. With Leviticus alone I can justify f****** YOUR duaghters. WQith the rest of the Old Testament I can justify everything from incest to Genocide.
If that is the guage of your "morality" then I say f*** your morality and f*** you.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd take your personal sexual problems to your Bishop Coffee.
Guess what, Scooter, and the rest of you lowlife sacks of s*** that profess that homosexuality is "wrong" because the Bible says so...
The Bible says a lot of s***. I can justify raping my kids and f****** animals with the Bible. With Leviticus alone I can justify f****** YOUR duaghters. WQith the rest of the Old Testament I can justify everything from incest to Genocide.
If that is the guage of your "morality" then I say f*** your morality and f*** you.
I'd really appreciate it if you'd take your personal sexual problems to your Bishop Coffee.
Of course Coggins can't perceive the forest being blinded as he is by the trees.
Let me just ask this question for clarification. What is you ex ante decision rule for deciding which parts of the Old Testament you adhere to and which parts you reject?
That is, for example, what is the decision rule to accept the Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality (to the extent it exists) but reject the Old Testament's advocacy of killing dissidents (as you point out in an earlier post the Old Testament advocates)?
Surely, you have some consistent, well-thought out rationale justifying how you pick and choose which scriptures you'll pay attention to and which you'll ignore. Right???
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Please supply Biblical evidence that homosexual behavior is forbidden by the Lord.
Jersey Girl
Don't take this to harshly but I'm not going to do that because that insults my intelligence. You know very well where all of that is, in both the New Testament and the Old Testament
Yes, I know where they are. Do you know what they refer to?
Jersey Girl
I think it is disengenuous to make the argument you are making. I think the text is self-apparent.
The vast majority (but not all, by any means; agenda-driven scholars read this text as referring only to male prostitution) of serious Biblical scholars agree that this quote condemns homosexual behavior, as Romans 1:26 pertains to lesbians. The most significant commentary I can quote is Expositors (NIV), vol. 10, p. 223. Expositors says this text applies to both homosexuality and male prostitution.
Let me also quote from the NIV Study Bible notes for these verses; this is a highly respected work which goes beyond evangelicalism: "Paul here identifies three kinds of sexually immoral persons: adulterers, male prostitutes and males who practice homosexuality. In Ro 1:26 he adds the category of females who practice homosexuality. People who engage in such practices, as well as other offenders listed in vv 9-10, are explicitly excluded from God's kingdom (but see next note)." The "next note" states that God can save and sanctify such persons under verse 11. But, under verse 18, the Christian is required to abandon these practices.
I really am not aware of a single major commentary which reads these versus differently, but I obviously don't possess them all. Those Victorian and pre-Victorian commentaries which support Expositors and the NIV Study Guide are: Matthew Henry (refers to it as sodomy) and Dummelow (lumps them all together as fornication).
Metzger demonstrates that the above interpretation of Paul here was universally followed by post-Biblical references to the verses. Metzger, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, p. 288.
You were saying?
I actually wasn't saying anything to you, crock, but now I will. Try reading the thread before making a complete fool of yourself. As if you haven't already done so repeatedly.
Jersey Girl
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Of course Coggins can't perceive the forest being blinded as he is by the trees.
Let me just ask this question for clarification. What is you ex ante decision rule for deciding which parts of the Old Testament you adhere to and which parts you reject?
That is, for example, what is the decision rule to accept the Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality (to the extent it exists) but reject the Old Testament's advocacy of killing dissidents (as you point out in an earlier post the Old Testament advocates)?
Surely, you have some consistent, well-thought out rationale justifying how you pick and choose which scriptures you'll pay attention to and which you'll ignore. Right???
Homosexuals were stoned in Old Testament times under Mosaic law. Striking one's Father brought a similar penalty. That is not the case under the new covenant that fulfilled and ended those Mosaic principles. So I don't pick and choose. One obeys the Lord's commandments as they are given in different times and under different circumstances. If you are a Liberal, then you are a law unto yourself and none of this will make any sense.
I don't have to pay attention to really any of the Mosaic law because that was done away and fulfilled in Christ and I'm not required to live that law. Indeed, doing so, as Paul pointed out again and again, would obviate the New Testament law.